• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Atheist President?

An Atheist President?


  • Total voters
    46
Sorry, I left my strobe lights at the other parade.



Evangelical In Name Only.

Pretty much nothing of substance to say with your so called knowledge of what evangelicals are all about, hmmm.

Ah, I see.
 
"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it." - Sam Harris


I don't have any problem with criticizing religion, as I said.


No, my post was clear. You misread it which is fine since we all do that from time to time.

Profiling is a necessary and unavoidable issue when faced with preventing events like 9/11 if we are to believe there is a radical Ilsamic sect which is trying to harm our citizens. I too have no problem criticizing religion.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

I would happily vote for an atheist president if he or she best represented my positions, but it certainly shouldn't be a requirement for office.
 
Pretty much nothing of substance to say with your so called knowledge of what evangelicals are all about, hmmm.

Ah, I see.

What is the Evangelical faith all about? I guess I need some education. Let me have it.
 
Um. No. Agnostics wonder if there's a god. They aren't sure. Atheists are sure.

How can anybody be sure about non-existence of anything? Especially something so poorly defined? Most atheists are not complete idiots.

When used properly, the word "agnostic" applies to the notion that there some things or beings are unknowable in principle, at least by human mind. To quote from Bertrand Russell's What is an Agnostic?, "An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned".I see no reason to subscribe to such strange idea, therefore I am not an agnostic.

Likewise, I am not going to believe in anything or anyone without some empirical evidence. That makes me an atheist, if "anyone" in question is God.

I understand that the destructive madness of Soviet "atheists" (fanatical believers in "no God" and a whole bunch of other crazy stuff) made a lasting impression, and some of us prefer to be called something else; "agnostics" sounds vague and harmless enough (kind of like American social-democrats prefer to be called (just as illogically) "liberals"). But it only leads to confusion.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

Americans are the most conflicted country in the world when it comes to religion and government. You just can't make up your minds. You want a President who doesn't follow his faith when making decisions for a nation of mulitple faiths and no faith at all. Yet, you go out of your way to ensure that your choice is a man/woman of faith. Until you mature in your own minds you'll never have an atheist President.
 
I would happily vote for an atheist president if he or she best represented my positions, but it certainly shouldn't be a requirement for office.

I noticed the Huntsman endorsement. He's a great candidate for a Republican.
 
what about both gay atheist black and woman ?
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

what you need is not an atheist president but a real secularist
 
How can anybody be sure about non-existence of anything? Especially something so poorly defined? Most atheists are not complete idiots.

The same way anybody can be sure about the opposite. Intelligent people have taken definitive positions on both sides of the question.

I understand that the destructive madness of Soviet "atheists" (fanatical believers in "no God" and a whole bunch of other crazy stuff) made a lasting impression, and some of us prefer to be called something else; "agnostics" sounds vague and harmless enough (kind of like American social-democrats prefer to be called (just as illogically) "liberals"). But it only leads to confusion.

I'm of the opinion that many people who call themselves atheists are actually apatheists.

Aside from that, I do not recognize the distinction between the belief in a lack and the lack of a belief when the label of atheism is employed as anything more than a split hair.
 
Profiling is a necessary and unavoidable issue when faced with preventing events like 9/11 if we are to believe there is a radical Ilsamic sect which is trying to harm our citizens. I too have no problem criticizing religion.
Whether profiling is necessary is irrelevant to what we were discussing. You said that Harris "in no way favors discrimination." However, since he favors profiling, he does favor discrimination and so do you apparently. Again, the issue was whether or not Harris favors discrimination. He does.
 
Yes, it does. Neither I nor the cats are invisible and thus pass the test of proof. Religion requires faith as opposed to proof. Thus, the cats and I can revere each other but worshipping is a bit over the top.


(but I have seen them praying for wet food at around 2 PM)


Still doesn't answer the question.........:mrgreen:
 
The same way anybody can be sure about the opposite..

The only way to be sure of the opposite to be presented with factual, verifiable proof of existence. There's no such thing as a proof on non-existence (except within very limited well-studied environments, like I can prove that there's no elephant in my room right now).

the distinction between the belief in a lack and the lack of a belief when the label of atheism is employed as anything more than a split hair.

But the distinction is huge. The belief in a lack is a fallacy. The lack of a belief is the cornerstone of scientific method and rational thinking in general.

I'm of the opinion that many people who call themselves atheists are actually apatheists .

In the sense that they don't think it is worth the effort, to look for gods or even to analyze such efforts skeptically? Yes, but that condition arrives after you become an atheist. The process of becoming hardly can be guided by indifference; we have evolved to be believers, after all.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country? In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?

No, that would go against the Constitution. Freedom of Religion, that includes politicians too.
 
I would definitely vote for an atheist if I thought he or she would make a good president and shared some of my views. I think religion is a personal thing and should never be mixed up with politics anyway.
 
Yes, it does. Neither I nor the cats are invisible and thus pass the test of proof. Religion requires faith as opposed to proof. Thus, the cats and I can revere each other but worshipping is a bit over the top.


(but I have seen them praying for wet food at around 2 PM)

There is no requirement that a deity be invisible by definition. God was once a burning tumbleweed or sumpin' and a black guy who looked just like Morgan Freeman.
 
what about both gay atheist black and woman ?

Too easy. How about a polygamous hermaphrodite Voodoo priest who just happens to be a Neanderthal resurrected by cloning?

;)
 
what you need is not an atheist president but a real secularist

That's how we started out, with people like Jefferson and Madison.
 
The only way to be sure of the opposite to be presented with factual, verifiable proof of existence. There's no such thing as a proof on non-existence (except within very limited well-studied environments, like I can prove that there's no elephant in my room right now).

That may be your standard, but it is not the standard held by many people. For many people, it is enough simply to believe.

But the distinction is huge. The belief in a lack is a fallacy. The lack of a belief is the cornerstone of scientific method and rational thinking in general.

The fallacy is the labeling of a lack of belief atheism, and it is little more than a lackluster attempt to skirt Russell's Teapot while continuing to brandish it at theists. That's why I refuse to recognize the distinction. A lack of belief is more properly defined at apatheism.
 
Wouldn't an atheist president be the ideal choice to lead the country?
Depends on the individual.

In fact, shouldn't we require our elected officials to forsake religion in order to better serve us and uphold the separation of Church and State?
Requiring that they give up their beliefs as a prerequisite for the position would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.
 
Notice how the visible ones all went out of business and that the biggest purveyors all have gods conveniently located in "heaven". There are good reasons for this but this is not the right thread for them.

I seriously doubt that any modern Presidents actually "believe" in anything but it's something you have to be in order to be electable. The actions completely contradict the purported beliefs. How convenient.



There is no requirement that a deity be invisible by definition. God was once a burning tumbleweed or sumpin' and a black guy who looked just like Morgan Freeman.
 
Notice how the visible ones all went out of business and that the biggest purveyors all have gods conveniently located in "heaven". There are good reasons for this but this is not the right thread for them.

I seriously doubt that any modern Presidents actually "believe" in anything but it's something you have to be in order to be electable. The actions completely contradict the purported beliefs. How convenient.

if by "modern presidents" you mean "modern democratic presidents" I agree.....
 
I'm an equal opportunity basher.

Well i just believe the Bush duo and Reagan were people of some faith, as twisted as it may have been at times.
 
Back
Top Bottom